Karnataka High Court
K Balagangdhara Swamy vs The Bangalore Development Authority on 31 July, 2023
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:26618
WP No. 7701 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 7701 OF 2020 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
K BALAGANGDHARA SWAMY
S/O LATE CHIKKABORAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
NO.2910, 2ND STAGE,
JYOTHI BEKARI ROAD,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KEMPARAJU., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARAPARK WEST,
BANGALORE -560020
REPT BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
Digitally signed by
JUANITA 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-2
THEJESWINI
Location: HIGH BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
COURT OF T CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KARNATAKA
KUMARAPARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. VACHAN., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS OF ALLOTMENT OF
ALTERNATIVE SITE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN FURHTER
THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER IN HIS LETTER
DTD,16.11.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-E.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:26618
WP No. 7701 of 2020
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner, who was allotted a residential site bearing No.355, in Anjanapura layout 5th Block, in the year 2001, is before this Court aggrieved of the inaction on the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) in responding to the petitioner's representation dated 16.11.2018 at Annexure-E.
2. In the representation dated 16.11.2018, the petitioner brought to the notice of the respondent-BDA that since the property in question is abutting a nala, it is treated as buffer zone and no construction activity can be carried out by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had sought for allotment of an alternative site.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent-BDA today filed a memo along with a copy of the resolution dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Board of the BDA. Learned Counsel submits that it has been resolved by the BDA that -3- NC: 2023:KHC:26618 WP No. 7701 of 2020 all such layouts that were formed prior to the notification of the Revised Master Plan-2015 (RMP-2015) and Zonal Regulations, shall not be considered for the implementation of the provisions contained in the RMP- 2015 and Zonal Regulations regarding the buffer zone adjacent to the storm water drains/nalas. Learned Counsel submits that it has been clearly stated in the resolution that all the layouts that were formed prior to the notification of RMP-2015 shall be out of the purview of the implementation of the provisions contained in RMP-2015 and Zonal Regulations regarding the buffer zone adjacent to the storm water drains/nalas. Learned Counsel would therefore submit that since Anjanapura layout was formed much prior to the notification of RMP-2015 and Zonal Regulations, the petitioner need not be apprehensive of his not being able to put up construction in the property in question.
4. Moreover, this Court in the case of Shri. Pavanjeet Singh Sandhu IPS, Vs. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and Others, in W.P.No.15298/2020, -4- NC: 2023:KHC:26618 WP No. 7701 of 2020 dated 06.04.2021 has considered elaborately the decision of the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in the case of Forward Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, and the general directions given by the Tribunal to set apart 15 meters as buffer zone from the Rajakaluves/storm water drains. The decision of this Court on the contentious issue is summarized in paragraph No.7, which is extracted as follows:
"7. The position of law is required to be clarified since several such complaints/petitions are being filed by the citizens of this city who have been declined approval of plan on the ground that certain directions are given by the NGT. In view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India setting aside the directions given by the NGT, what remains is the implementation of the Zonal Regulations, RMP-2015 and subsequent revised master plan, if any has been approved and newly notified. As noticed earlier, the requirement of having a buffer zone of 50 meters, 25 meters and 15 meters should be made applicable only to Drains newly identified while finalizing the RMP-2015 and at any rate it should not be applicable to the drains that were -5- NC: 2023:KHC:26618 WP No. 7701 of 2020 already in existence prior to finalization of RMP- 2015. If layouts are formed prior to finalization of RMP-2015, the requirement of setting apart buffer zone as contemplated in the zonal regulation of RMP-2015 is not applicable."
5. It was noticed that the directions given by the National Green Tribunal on 04.05.2016 was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 05.03.2019, since the fact that the regulations contained in the RMP- 2015 and Zonal Regulations are prospective in nature. This Court, in Shri. Pavanjeet Singh Sandhu (supra) has held that if the layouts are formed prior to finalization of RMP-2015, the requirement of setting apart buffer zone as contemplated in the Zonal Regulations of RMP-2015 in such layouts, is not applicable. However, the layout in question is formed prior to finalization of RMP-2015.
6. The submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent-BDA is accepted.
7. Consequently, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of making it clear that the petitioner is entitled to -6- NC: 2023:KHC:26618 WP No. 7701 of 2020 seek approval of the building plan and building license to put up a construction. If such application is filed by the petitioner, the competent authority shall consider the same and proceed to sanction the plan without insisting on the implementation of the provisions contained in the RMP-2015 and Zonal Regulations to the property in question, regarding buffer zone.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL